Amid domestic and international rejections, Burma’s military regime is going
to hold an election on Sunday.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader and Nobel winner is in custody. Her
years of incarceration count 15 in total, still continuing. Students and
minority leaders are kept in prison cells all over the country serving long
prison terms. Repeated universal appeals for their release went unanswered.

Drunken soldiers and officers often assault, shoot and kill lads who dare to
mess with them. Youths are picked up from roads, market places, cinemas,
on the way to school – army recruits.

Rapes of minority women by soldiers in insurgent areas are still happening.
Peasants’ farms are confiscated for army cantonments, state led development
projects, for crony businessmen.

Newspapers and weekly journals require approval from the censor board before
stories go for print. Telephone lines are cut right in the middle of
conversation by regime’s agents in the exchange. Foreign websites are shut
off. Foreign journalists are banned, kicked out of country if found with
tourist visas.

You cannot list the sins of the Burmese junta that goes by the name, State
Peace and Development Council, in a sitting.

However, adding stories to the already voluminous junta-bashing literature
wastes everybody’s precious time. It is time for the rest of the world to
ask itself a hard question, a very hard one.

Hard questions usually begin reality check.

Reality on the ground: Washington is helpless vis-à-vis the junta. Kurt
Campbell, the U.S Assistant Foreign Secretary, was in Burma in May, fourteen
years after Madeline Albright. No breakthrough though. Economic sanctions
are ‘no more than a modest inconvenience’ to the Generals, according to him.

The UN is helpless. Creation of a Commission of Inquiry is far too distant
to scare the junta, especially after Wikileaks.org.

ASEAN, a small regional bloc, needs Burma more than it needs them in return
in the ultimate sense. All members are birds of a feather anyway.

Even Beijing, the Asian superpower believed to hold sways, sometimes
laments; “they just didn’t listen to us,” according to Joshua Kurlantzick, a
fellow at Council of Foreign Relations.

From this reality, the hard question why Burma cannot be stopped arises.

The issue has been hopelessly ailing for two decades in the hands of senile
senators, Burma experts who neither speak nor read Burmese, self serving
policy feeders - the highly opportunistic exile communities, and aggravated
by media Orientalism.

A reassessment has to be made finding ‘who wants what’ in the issue, and how
desperately.

Washington adds up Burma in its equation along with China and North Korea.
Whereas, Burma lists up sanctions and normal relations. These are hard facts,
national interests that come before democracy rhetoric. The difference
between levels of desperation also is to be factored in.

Andrew Silth, an Australian scholar on Burma, identified two important
aspects of the new U.S policy: that Washington now accepts a long, step by
step process in changing Burma; and that domestic actors, not external
powers, are to be heroes who do the lifting.

He also pointed out junta’s ‘open for business’ attitude toward the West and
the new U.S Government’s direct high level engagement approach.

Indeed, one side’s positive attitude and the other’s direct engagement
together constitute a good starting point.

What is necessary to accomplish Washington’s new step by step policy?
Realistic

policy steps demand correct and comprehensive policy feeds not selected,
distorted feeds. It is highly important for the Administration to get rid
the old sources of policy feed and replace with new, alternative sources.

Next, though with new approach and new policy feeds yet the game itself is
two decades old. It cannot be started back from square one. Burmese regime
survived seven U.S administrations – from Ronald Reagan down to Barak Obama.
During these years it has done re-entrenchment steps such as stability,
economy and foreign relations expansion. These cannot be undone.

Washington can only make the Burmese regime victim of its own successes, not
foiling.

The election is to produce a civil-military hybrid government supposedly to
replace the direct military rule. A veteran Burmese politician, U Thu Wai,
construed it as the strategic, initial step of retreat of the military from
politics. Some Burmese share his view. He is one of the 500 civilians known
as, ‘Third Forces,’ standing in election. They are to compete with 2000 pro
regime candidates for the 498 national level seats. The military will send
156 officers directly to the legislature, 25 percent of the grand total of 664.

Unprecedented, this civil military partnership is an experiment to all those
involved.

The new constitutional makeup can shape but the form only, not the political
essence. Numerical superiority in the legislature alone will not guarantee
the military its projected political course. The classic ‘tyranny of
majority’ cannot prevail in this day and age.

Imagine a hypothetical
situation that Aung San Suu Kyi were in the new legislature, how she could
have shaped many important political decisions. Even if Third Forces can
secure 20 percent of the seats (100 seats) they still can create impact. This is
just a conservative estimate that fits well within Washington’s first step
of the ‘step by step’ policy.

The post election months in Burma will be very fluid an historic moment
and will be watched by the world with wide eyes. This will be the moment high
caliber individuals have a chance to take over the masses in or outside the
chamber and shape the future course.

New Burmese legislators may be fighting each others with fists and curses
like in Indian, Taiwanese, South Korean, Russian and Ukrainian parliaments.
Nevertheless, the introduction of new rules of the game will be a net gain,
should be Washington’s first step.

Washington’s next step should be to drive perfecting the imperfect , new
constitution. One such aspect is the institution of presidency. The
President should be elected by direct popular votes, which is not the case
at this stage. So is the unelected military portion of the seats in the
assembly. Earmark them for the second step.

Aung San Suu Kyi will be freed by then. If she wills, she can help perfect
the constitution so that she can be back in the political process and
prepare for the next election in 2015.

The new attitude can be shown with the resumption of normal relations,
appointing an ambassador, with the end of calling this country by its old
colonial name ‘Burma’ and starts using its proud indigenous name, “Myanmar.”
If Washington could self-edit its moral high ground rhetoric that irks the
generals, excellent. These steps are more important yet easier than lifting
sanctions that require a fight at home.

The new approach will be cost effective. It involves no sending of
thousands of troops and no wasting of billions of dollars as in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Washington only needs to make certain that the regime lies in
the bed it has made.

Help a military regime make a regime-change done by itself - a
metamorphosis. Enlightenment is the key word for the whole thing. Burma can
stop its evils only by itself, given the arising multipolar world order.

Letters that do not contain full contact information cannot be published.Letters become the property of AseanAffairs and may be republished in any format.They typically run 150 words or less and may be edited

orsubmit your comment in the box below

Name

Email

1. Verifier

For security purposes, we ask that you enter the security code that is shown in the graphic. Please enter the code exactly as it is shown in the graphic.